An occupier of premises, or an entity with the capacity to control the conduct of persons on premises, must have sufficient knowledge of a risk of injury posed by third parties to its visitors in order for a duty to arise to take reasonable care to avoid this risk.

For the purposes of s 50C of the Limitation Act 1969 proceedings in respect of a cause of action must be commenced within 3 years of the date on which the cause of action was "discoverable".

Where a plaintiff is under legal incapacity, a tutor can accept an offer of compromise and create a binding agreement.

Occupation is only one aspect when considering the scope of the duty of a home owner.

A discussion of Bathurst Regional Council as Trustee for the Bathurst City Council Crown Reserves Reserve Trust v Thompson.

An occupier of commercial premises owes a duty to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to a lawful entrant who is using reasonable care for his or her own safety.

The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the owner/occupier of a property could be said to be in charge of construction work for the purposes of reg 74 of the Construction Safety Regulations, 1950.

For a plaintiff to assert that two or more tortfeasors are jointly liable in damages, the plaintiff must demonstrate more than the mere similarity in business between the defendants and a knowledge of the competitor's products.

The plaintiff was an experienced workman who carried out work as a brick cleaner. He was employed by his wife who carried on a cleaning service called Rosa's Cleaning Services. On Saturday 3 April 2004 the plaintiff suffered personal injury when he fell through a hole in the scaffolding on a building site. The plaintiff was an experienced workman who carried out work as a brick cleaner. He was employed by his wife who carried on a cleaning service called Rosa's Cleaning Services. On Saturday 3

This decision demonstrates that hotels are not under a general duty to eject troublesome patrons from their premises.

Financial advisers must look at all aspects of products and clients to ensure the advice is not negligent or misleading.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summons for leave to commence proceedings more than 3 years after the accident.

Workers who breached safety were offered the alternative of taking one month's leave without pay instead of being terminated. In the particular circumstances, the court held that this was not a breach of ss 340 or 343 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), as the employer first formed the intention to dismiss the workers, and then decided to offer them leave without pay as an alternative to dismissal.

The Federal Court of Australia has rejected an argument that “forward contracts” for purchase of grain are “derivatives” or “financial products” for the purposes of Part 7 of the Corporations Act 2001.

The NSW Court of Appeal has decided that an agreement on the degree of permanent impairment suffered by a worker with respect to a claim for lump sum compensation under s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 ("the 1987 Act") has no impact on whether the 15% whole person impairment threshold for a work injury damages claim has been met, as required by s 151H of the 1987 Act.

MAS decision to reject applications in error is subject to judicial review.

Curwoods Case Note on McKinlay v Mahoney [2011] QSC 279

Section 5B(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (CLA) requires a number of factors to be considered when determining whether a reasonable person would have taken necessary precautions against the relevant harm. The factors prescribed under s 5B(2) do not operate in isolation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the principle in Tarabay v Leite [2008] NSWCA 259, namely that questions of apportionment give rise to findings which cannot easily be characterized as right or wrong

The objective of MAS is to determine whether a claimant's injuries arising from an accident exceed a threshold which would entitle them to damages for non-economic loss. Their determinations have a significant impact to the rights of the claimant and insurer. It is important that such determinations are correct in accordance with the law.